Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research article the current learning practices to the students with physical disabilities are discussed. It is a qualitative study. The main objective of the study is to analyze current learning practices used for students with physical disabilities in Kailali district. Interview schedule and classed observation were the major tools for the collection of data in the study. The researcher chose case study as a research design. In this study, the organization is a case where physically disabled students stay and study. Among eight teachers three teachers were selected through Purposive sampling method. The data were collected from teachers who were teaching physically disabled students in school teaching. The findings of the study showed that the practice of teaching physically disabled students seemed to be difficult and challenging. The foremost reason behind this is the lack of disability-assistive infrastructure, parental support, social stigma, teachers training and awareness. Moreover, the findings revealed that teachers’ professionalism, engagement with students, planning for the lesson, inculcating the spirit of a creative and critical thinking and setting goals can prove instrumental to maximize students’ outcomes. The implication of the study is that the teachers should enhance special skills to deal with physically disabled students for their better performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".